Background and objectives: To date, there is no evidence-based method of quantification for malocclusion. Consequently, how deviant occlusal traits should be scored and weighted relative to one another is a matter of serious debate. Orthodontic Treatment Need Indices (OTNI) use the subjective opinion of the experts, as their foundation, to define the pathological boundaries (cut-offs) of occlusal traits. This paper reviews the evidence relating malocclusions or deviated occlusal traits to oral health problems, and investigates if this evidence supports the cut-off points and the rationale used for OTNI.
Materials and methods: The relevant cited studies and reviews from the MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane databases, and scientific textbooks were used. The citation rate was confirmed by using the Google Scholar.
Results: So far, the evidence for harmful effects of deviated occlusal traits on oral health is either lacking or exists as cross-sectional (mostly) and longitudinal (a few and primarily short-term) studies. When an association was reported between a deviated occlusal trait and an oral health problem, either the strength of that association was weak, or due to methodological issues, findings were not conclusive. Consequently, establishing a cause and effect relationship is difficult. Further, commonly used OTNI do not record a full spectrum of occlusal traits, and relating their ranking or scoring systems to the available evidence is difficult. Therefore, there is little evidence to suggest that individuals with a high need (high score), as measured by OTNI, will necessarily put at risk their oral health if they turn down orthodontic therapy.
Conclusion: OTNI have a role in the epidemiology and can be used for resource planning, but their predictive value to detect the future objective functional deficits or oral health problems is questionable. OTNI will need revalidation over time with emerging research findings.
Copyright © 2012. Published by Elsevier Srl.